I am sure the first objection will be "you don't actually pay". Does a farmer not owe his (cash) cow at least basic veterinary (customer) services? I honestly feel like that objection is as naive as claiming that exploitative international trade doesn't actually kill anybody, when there are entire populations held in poverty and without basic safety rights over decades or even centuries due to unjust practices. So I guess the counterpoint to "it's free, don't expect anything" is "if you can't provide a complete product including understanding the problems that derive from it and treating people with respect, you shouldn't offer it at all". Money does not define social responsibility, engaging publicly with other people does.
It is still "free". You don't pay anything to use it.
> they do make a significant amount of money from each customer they can keep in the herd
No, they make a small amount of money from each customer. By far not enough to provide human 24/7 customer support.
> despite the fact that their income could more than support some basic customer service
If that's a fact I'm sure you'll be able to provide enough support to such a claim.
But let's do some basic math. Let's say that Gmail has 1B users, and each user will use customer support once every 2 years, and that each support ticket costs $10 to provide (I've heard similar numbers). Probably far more when you think about all the languages and products.
That's $5B in support per year. Which is 20% of their 2016 profit.
There you go, you can't have a free service and good customer support. Proven.
But hey, you're welcome to vote with your wallet and clicks, and move to another provider that gives free products with free, good, 24/7 human customer support.
Let me guess: you won't. Because there are none. Because it doesn't make any financial sense.
It is entirely irrelevant to this thread and discussion. We are talking about the service for one paid product (Google Apps), on a thread announcing the service for another paid product (Google Chrome Enterprise).
No, OP is talking about this case, which is a free product:
Agreed, and doesn't need to be less tech-savvy people, just look at HN. People seem to expect good and free service.
> This dichotomy is both reductive and inapplicable.
And is still unavoidable. You can't have both.
> And again, most customers aren't aware of the extent of this and its implications until it's too late.
It is the same behavior with airline tickets. Consumers almost always buy the cheapest ticket, and later complain about the quality of the service.